I tried copy/pasta but the article is long, difficult to to embed all images/links of which there are many.

Here is a TL;DR:

Quote:

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.

Mind blowing article with so many implications. Unfortunately this gives more credibility to people calling "shill" with everyone they disagree with. But it turns out that there are such agents actively manipulating opinions in online forums. The slides he shows even mentions some of their tactics such as using: confirmation bias, disinfo, slander, anchoring, priming, social penetration theory, attention control, etc.

I'm not sure that there's many topics where someone has every last fact, verified to 100% certainty. Hell, we execute people based on "beyond a reasonable doubt." We don't require 100% certainty to kill someone! You can't even generate the courage to express an opinion.

I answered the question and expressed an opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by planetdoc

It would be sickening and enraging for the US government to carry out an attack against the American people such as 9-11. I hope that is not the case. It would be something I wouldnt want to believe. My "gut" will be tainted by those hopes.

I'm sorry you feel badgered, but I disagree that my questions are overly repetitive or poor form.

ok. noted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You seem to take inconsistent positions when on the one hand you refuse to draw conclusions on the 9/11 attacks because you don't have full information

I refuse to draw a conclusion because congressman state vital info is being kept from the public regarding 9-11.

To me its like telling a patient they have an illness (such as cancer), and leaving out the details (such as type, stage, etc). They would be unable to make an informed decision regarding treatment. It would be malpractice to require them to do so with such limited info.

Why should I make a conclusion based on information that congressman have stated is limited and without vital information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

but on the other hand you believe something nefarious has been proven on the government surveillance and government propaganda fronts despite an obvious lack of full information.

the government is welcome to share information refuting Glen Greenwald's claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

That apparent inconsistency encourages questions.

I can see why you feel that way. I apologize for stating that your line of questioning is poor form.

In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.

Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States.

“I think it raises a lot of questions about why that information didn’t become public and why the 9/11 Commission or the congressional intelligence committees weren’t told about it,” said former Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2004 through 2007 when lawmakers dealt with the fallout from the 9/11 Commission’s official report.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission with former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, said that as far as he can remember, the FBI never told the commission that it had been working a source so close to bin Laden that many years before 9/11.

“I do not recall the FBI advising us of a direct contact with Osama bin Laden,” Mr. Hamilton told The Times in a recent interview.

Exactly how the information was omitted from the various congressional reviews and the 9/11 Commission report is a mystery.

So it sounds like the government had a person on the inside informing the FBI about OBL's plans but due to the thousands of threats that the US had it didn't believe OBL was capable of pulling off such an attack and it wasn't considered a top priority.

not only that, but here is what happend to the agent running the mole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Mr. Youssef remains with the bureau, overseeing its telephone intercept analysis unit, and he won an appeals court ruling a few years ago to pursue a discrimination lawsuit against the bureau. That ruling was handed down after FBI supervisors were forced to admit he was blocked from his job as one of the bureau’s top terrorism fighters because he was mistaken for an Arab Muslim whose loyalties should be questioned after Sept. 11. In fact, Mr. Youssef was a highly decorated agent and a Coptic Christian.

That's great. Let's marginalize and discriminate the very asset that was right. Gee. We really don't need people like him in the FBI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

There still isn't any proof that government is participating in massive domestic surveillance, unless by surveillance you mean data warehousing for potential warrant-enabled access in the future.

recently filed lawsuit about that. This person might actually be able to prove standing, and the government will likely again claim "state secrets", but it may not work.

Even if we accept the facts as described in that article for the sake of argument, the idea that there might be improper, warrant-less surveillance involved is speculative. I see no reason to believe that's likely to be the case, but let me know if it ends up turning up any compelling evidence.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

In order to make an INFORMED decision, one must have all the facts. I dont know if a fully unclassified 9-11 report has all the facts. It likely has all the facts that they have. Senator Bob Graham suggests that the FBI did not do a thorough report. In any case, its more information than I currently have and will allow me to make a MORE informed decision.

You realize you've set a standard where you can never form an opinion on anything? Since you really can never be sure that there aren't more facts out there, somewhere, you can never have an opinion. Maybe the weakest cop-out I've ever seen.

And you're a doctor? Do you diagnose people? Suggest treatment? How do you ever decide anything?

You realize you've set a standard where you can never form an opinion on anything?

not true. I want to see the fully unclassified 9-11 report from the 9-11 commission. I also acknowledge the 9-11 commission may not have all the facts about 9-11. They have even aknowledged that recently. I realize it will be impossible to have all the facts regarding the event, but I am willing to wait to see the "vital information" that congressman have stated is being with held from the public.

BTW, based on what I have read it seems the 28 classified pages of the 9-11 report have to do with the involvement of prominent Saudis in 9-11.

It appears like you are purposefully ignoring those legimit concerns voiced by myself as well as US congressman, and the recent revelations that the 9-11 commission didnt get all the info from the FBI regarding what they new about Al-qaeda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Since you really can never be sure that there aren't more facts out there, somewhere, you can never have an opinion. Maybe the weakest cop-out I've ever seen.

not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

And you're a doctor?

I prefer the term physician. Doctor is non descript since that now essentially counts for phd, jd, pharmd, doctor of optometry, etc.

edit: I've put you on ignore now as well. Based on your responses in this thread it appears as if you arent interested in a meaningful discussion and just interested in name-calling, etc. Its not worth my time.

not true. I want to see the fully unclassified 9-11 report from the 9-11 commission. I also acknowledge the 9-11 commission may not have all the facts about 9-11. They have even aknowledged that recently. I realize it will be impossible to have all the facts regarding the event, but I am willing to wait to see the "vital information" that congressman have stated is being with held from the public.

BTW, based on what I have read it seems the 28 classified pages of the 9-11 report have to do with the involvement of prominent Saudis in 9-11.

It appears like you are purposefully ignoring those legimit concerns voiced by myself as well as US congressman, and the recent revelations that the 9-11 commission didnt get all the info from the FBI regarding what they new about Al-qaeda.

not true.

I prefer the term physician. Doctor is non descript since that now essentially counts for phd, jd, pharmd, doctor of optometry, etc.

edit: I've put you on ignore now as well. Based on your responses in this thread it appears as if you arent interested in a meaningful discussion and just interested in name-calling, etc. Its not worth my time.

The doc purposefully puts head in the sand. What a surprise.

Someone will have to quote this for the doc to see me calling him a spineless joke one last time.